Is it possible for you to do anything that God did not already know you would do?

[Falvlun]

My answer is a firm No, for I can see no logical reason why God's omniscience cannot be exactly that. Surely if our brains, that is to say the mechanism by which we have the ability to reason and act, is given to us by God, then I think we can assume predictability and foreknowledge of our actions. A designer creates a product and can even predict it's long-term performance and indicate its probable obsolesence date. But unlike an imperfect human, in the case of an omnipotent God there are by definition no probabilities or adjusted forecasts. We do what we're expected to do. God cannot be surprised, disappointed, delighted, angry or frustrated. Hume said: 'Whatever is, may not be'. But (with apologies to Hume) I would add to that 'except where it is ordained by God'. None of this is to say that God does or must exist.

Cottage

My bolding.
In this case, it would not be God's omniscience that is killing the possibility of free-will, but the design. (ie, if the design of humans is such that it is perfectly predictable, we are not designed to have free-will in the first place.)

 

[Azakel]

Yes, all the time.

 

[Falvlun]

well it certainly seems that way, and if that is the case, and what you believe, then im not sure what your argueing. if the future cannost exist concurently to the "present" then the future cannot be known. so we would have free will.

So, isn't it the mere existence of the future, and not the knowledge of that future (omniscience), which destroys free-will?

 

[Willamena]

Enoch....I would need a scientific calculator to calculate how many times I have explained this to you, but what the heck. I will try some bolding for emphasis. Maybe this one will penetrate.

• As you have admited in previous posts, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO SOMETHING GOD DID NOT FOREKNOW.
• So, when A, B, C, and D actions come up, GOD FOREKNOWS WHICH ONE ACTION YOU WILL TAKE.
• That means that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO TAKE THE OTHER ACTIONS.
• So, these options you keep talking about ARE NOT OPTIONS because you CANNOT take them.
• A situation in which it is only possible to take ONE action is not a choice.

Now, do me a favor before start that post that begins with "But we still have options." Read that bullet list again. Understand that God knows all and that you cannot fool him with your actions. You can do NOTHING he did not already know you would do millions of years before you were born. Your life can only confirm God's amazing nature; that He knows the future with a certainty.

Does this help?
)()(

The problem isn't with Enoch.

The first premise is that "free will" is the ability to choose. When you are facing a choice between options, you are exercising "free will".

The second premise is that God's foreknown the outcome. It is only when you are going to choose that you face options; once you've already made a choice, the whole concept of "options" and "free will" falls away --it no longer applies. When we look at it from God's point of view, choices are already made; but when we look at it from a whole nother point of view, that of "me!", choices are not yet made.

From one point of view, options and free will exist, and from the other they do not.

In this scenario there is "free will": I'm looking at it, even if "God" is not.

 

[JMorris]

Why is it impossible to take the other actions?

Just because God foresaw you taking a certain action does not take away the fact that you are able to choose from a number of actions. I do not understand why you consider it the same as not having any options at all. If you did not have any options then you could only take A and have no other choices at all. This is not the case. The fact that you have the cognitive thought to be able to choose A,B,C,or D is proof positive of free will.

:drool:i lost alot of brain cells reading this

 

[JMorris]

So, isn't it the mere existence of the future, and not the knowledge of that future (omniscience), which destroys free-will?

i guess the existence is the cause, and the knowledge is the effect.:areyoucra i think
anyway, it ends in being no free will

 

[idea]

Just because you cause something does not mean you excercise free will. You only have free will if you have more than one option to choose from. If you only have one options and cannot choose anything else, then your can hardly be said to have made a choice.




Consider this summary. Excuse the caps/bolding/underlining. I do not mean to yell. I copied this from an earlier post where I was trying for the umpteenth time to explain this to someone who was not getting it.

• As you have admited , IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO SOMETHING GOD DID NOT FOREKNOW.
• So, when A, B, C, and D actions come up, GOD FOREKNOWS WHICH ONE ACTION YOU WILL TAKE.
• That means that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO TAKE THE OTHER ACTIONS.
• So, other options ARE NOT OPTIONS because you CANNOT take them.
• A situation in which it is only possible to take ONE action is not a choice.

If God knows what you will do then you can only do what he foreknows. It may feel like a choice, but it cannot be.

We control our own actions, we have choices. We set our future in stone, not God. Free agency is not about "if" our future is set in stone, it is a matter of who sets it in stone. we set it in stone, it is our agency.

PS - I am LDS, I do not believe that God "created" everything from nothing. I believe that a better translation is "form" not "create" - God is forming what eternally exists. God did not create us, we are eternal with no beginning - God forms what allows itself to be formed... To have an independant will, part of us has to be independant - and we are.

Time does not exist for God, it will not exist for us when we leave this life. No before/after cause/effect - no time - just the eteranl nature of who we are. We are hear revealing to ourselves our own nature. Not proving anything to God, proving to ourself who we are.

knowing is NOT the same as causing. Just because God knows what choice we will make, does not mean there were no choices. We choose, God just knows us well enough to know what we will choose.

We are the cause of our own future.

 

[Willamena]

if you have options, then you have a number of possible futures that will come of that. if you have only 1 possible future, then you only have 1 possible option.

If there is only one possible option, then whose option is the "one"? Does it belong to the individual (for whom there are consistently a myriad of options faced in each moment) or to the universe?

If it belongs to the universe, then is it really a person's "free will" we are talking about, or something else?

 

[idea]

If there is only one possible option, then whose option is the "one"? Does it belong to the individual (for whom there are consistently a myriad of options faced in each moment) or to the universe?

If it belongs to the universe, then is it really a person's "free will" we are talking about, or something else?

It does not belong to the universe, it belongs to the individual. Hense, we have free will.

 

[JMorris]

If there is only one possible option, then whose option is the "one"? Does it belong to the individual (for whom there are consistently a myriad of options faced in each moment) or to the universe?

If it belongs to the universe, then is it really a person's "free will" we are talking about, or something else?

i dont know, what do you think this "something else" is?

 

[Willamena]

i dont know, what do you think this "something else" is?

Fate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Does anyone have a logical refutation of the logical contradiction between omniscience and free-will? I quit following the thread a few pages back and was just wondering whether anything more compelling than "we have free will because we have choices" has been put forth.

 

[Willamena]

Does anyone have a logical refutation of the logical contradiction between omniscience and free-will? I quit following the thread a few pages back and was just wondering whether anything more compelling than "we have free will because we have choices" has been put forth.

Yeah: perspectivism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah: perspectivism.

I was asking about logical refutations.

 

[JMorris]

Fate.

i guess they can all be considered the same kind of thing, because they have the same effect. ive said in some of my other posts, that even if you take god out of the equation, any kind of for-knowledge of the future presents a problem with concern to free will.

i always wondered why when a couple says they were "fated to be together" whats so special about that? that just means it was going to happen no matter what. nothing earned, it just happened the way it was supposed to.

 

[JMorris]

Does anyone have a logical refutation of the logical contradiction between omniscience and free-will? I quit following the thread a few pages back and was just wondering whether anything more compelling than "we have free will because we have choices" has been put forth.

no, its mostly been many different versions of that same answer

 

[Willamena]

i guess they can all be considered the same kind of thing, because they have the same effect. ive said in some of my other posts, that even if you take god out of the equation, any kind of for-knowledge of the future presents a problem with concern to free will.

It presents precisely the same problem with concern to free will --which is really just to say that "God" in this scenario is nothing more than the universal objective observer. Which is also to say that the individual's perspective, and hence the individual's facing of options, was removed from the picture beforehand. "Free will" was never in this scenario.

i always wondered why when a couple says they were "fated to be together" whats so special about that? that just means it was going to happen no matter what. nothing earned, it just happened the way it was supposed to.

The concept of "fate" involves the individual's perspective in a way that the totally universal point of view does not (the later ignores it). That's what makes "fate" special.

 

[Falvlun]

Does anyone have a logical refutation of the logical contradiction between omniscience and free-will? I quit following the thread a few pages back and was just wondering whether anything more compelling than "we have free will because we have choices" has been put forth.

Have a gander at my posts:
554 (this is my first post)
570
580
etc

Please note that I have two separate arguments. If you need clarification, just ask.

 

[Falvlun]

i guess the existence is the cause, and the knowledge is the effect.:areyoucra i think
anyway, it ends in being no free will

Bingo. But omniscience isn't the reason there is no free-will.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Have a gander at my posts:
554 (this is my first post)
570
580
etc

Please note that I have two separate arguments. If you need clarification, just ask.

I have no problem with your argument - it just changes the definition of omniscient we've been using. If god, or any entity, couldn't know the future, then of course there would be free will.

However, the generally accepted definition of omniscience, as well as what we've specifically been arguing, is knowledge of everything, or infinite knowledge - including every event that will ever occur.

The type of "limited omniscience" you describe wouldn't preclude free will.